MovieChat Forums > The Brown Bunny (2003) Discussion > Isn't this considered porn?

Isn't this considered porn?


By definition, a film that contains un-simulated sex is a pornographic film. So wouldn't the oral sex scene alone qualify it to be labeled as porn? or even an 'adult' title?

reply

Mmmm.... no. Well, not in my book, at least. I mean, porn, to me is just that - porn. It's all sex, meant for visual and sensory pleasure; in other words, you're supposed to get off while watching it. This movie is not at all the case. I mean, sure, some people might get a little turned on by the aspect of the reality of it all, but it's kind of a disturbing scene with the way it all plays out and the context it's in. I suppose one could call it an "adult" film, but not really in a pornographic sense. It's real sex on film, but there's very little that is pleasurable or appealing about it in its case. Nonetheless, the film was left unrated, and, if I recall, the trailers said "for adults only" or something along those lines.

¡Buena suerte!

reply

[deleted]

Your use of the word "pornographic" implies that to you, it more associated with obscene than just explicit sex.

Legally speaking, obscene is defined as the portrayal of human sexual behavior with the goal of sexual arousal, and without artistic merit.

The last clause is the key one. Since The Brown Bunny is generally considered to have artistic merit, it is not obscene.

Since it was produced for the art house circuit, and shown at film festivals it was reviewed and distributed more like a mainstream film than like typical pornography (where the point is the sex, not the story).

For all the bad press the original long version got after the 2003 Cannes Film Festival; the short version shown later at the 2003 Toronto International Film Festival, got good reviews. The short version got a thumbs up from Ebert, and was on other critics "best of" lists for both the year and the decade.

Ebert in particular cited the two versions of the film as an example of how transformative good editing can be.

reply

Inclusion of sex would make the movie classifiable by the MPAA as for adults only, but the definition of porn is a depiction of sex WITH THE INTENTION TO AROUSE.

Was that the directors intention ?

reply

[deleted]

No, you see, if you randomly insert long shots where nothing happens at all and foreshadow the opening credits of Birdemic: Shock and Terror, your amateur porn somehow becomes an art film. Come on. You just don't GET it, man.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

You're ON THE INTERNET. can't you take at least ten seconds to LOOK UP a definition of something before you simply restate it incorrectly?

Jesus, how lazy can one get?

reply